an enormous issue for Americans is this: to what extent should our humanitarian concerns be secondary to our national interests? This is a moral question; perhaps the preeminent geopolitical one of our time.

MD essentially points to the problems we face in generating first tier responses to second tier problems (see the Spiral Dynamics links on the sidebar for an explanation). The post-modern, relativistic "sensitive self" (liberalism) is incapable of dealing with egoic, authoritarian values systems (Islamofascists). On the other hand, our own version of authoritarian rationalism (conservatism) seldom rises above the level of bombing them into oblivion, a tactic that no longer works against a non-nation enemy (witness Viet Nam and now Iraq and Lebanon). We need new solutions to new problems, an exploration I started last night and will continue in the coming days and weeks.

~ Colmar took issue with my comment that the liberal Dems voted against Lieberman less than they voted for Lamont. He paints Lamont as old money, even throwing out some red herring about his uncle or something. Lamont is the Steve Forbes of the Dems, and few conservatives were castigating Forbes for spending his own money. That said, I think the Democratic party is in its death throes. This race simply shows that it has a little nostalgic 1970s-era kick left in it before it dies.